On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 20:37 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > Maybe that's a reasonable criteria for giving someone commit access to > the OneTrueBuild. But, that's not reasonable criteria for giving > someone access to convenient SCM. That's like saying: We love for > people to join us on this trip across country. We know the best way > is this train we're on, so we see if they can keep up for a while on > bicycles, and if they can, we let them on the train.
Your analogies are tired and they aren't winning you any friends. Clearly you have different core beliefs from the rest of the developers, and continual sniping is not going to change anyone's mind. Yours or theirs or mine. My job as a developer is to provide useful and quality code for the users of Gnucash, not spread SCM to the masses. > I've spent more time refreshing out-of-tree patches that I have > actually developing code! (ok, not really, but a LOT of time, it's a > PITA.) You should have spoken up the moment you saw Neil's patches go in and said to yourself "that's not related to the gtk2 port." > It's pretty off-putting. I think, ideally, *anyone* who wants > to should be on the SCM train. Let everybody go as fast as we know > how. If people think it's best to require some test of endurance in > order to write to the OneTrueBuild, then so be it. Its not an endurance test. I for one want to see the quality of code that people write before I give them free reign to play in the "One True Build". > Personally, I think code should stand on its own, but whatever. I agree with you there. Code should stand on its own, but I insist on knowing that its quality code. I'd rather take the time to look at a new developer's patches up front than to have the program blow up in strange and mysterious ways, and then have to track down problems after the fact. Been there. Done that with customers yelling at my manager. Don't want to do it again. > > and old devs leave as they find other projects to work on. The main > > issue is that ALL the core devs got burned out after 1.8 and there > > weren't any fringe devs to pull up in the ranks. > > You make it sound like you believe that the derth of fringe devs is > some random, inexplicable circumstance. Surely you have some theory > (or maybe knowledge) for *why* a large, popular project went from a > healthy dev rate to barely alive? Define healthy dev rate. In the four years that I've been associated with the project its never had more than a handful of core developers. None of the core developers are still around from when I started working with Gnucash, except for Derek. I've gone from guy submitting patches to the build system to primary developer. Josh started sometime after me and wrote the entire scheduled transaction system. Neil's come in and redesigned a core part of the engine. We have the same number of core devs as in 2002, just different ones. > Or are you convinced that the fundamental impediment to new devs is > code complexity? Yes. And the fact that no-one is willing to learn Scheme. (Can't stand it myself, but its what we have.) The amount of scheme is diminishing, but I doubt it will ever go away completely. > Or do you just want to agree to disagree on this? Yes. David _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
